EVIDENCE that my Sony DSC-W50 is a piece of crap!! Please let me know what you think

[mch111782]

I have 3 or 4 different examples of this, and chose to post this one here. I know the Sony DSC W50 isn't the nicest camera out there, but it really shouldn't be getting it's a$$ handed to it by an entry-level Kodak. You be the judge..

Link #1 is taken with my Sony DSC W50, 4 months old, 6 megapixels, a $250-300 dollar camera, supposedly a nice point and shoot camera. It has already had a lens replacement for taking bad pictures since I've owned it, but it supposedly in perfect working order. I had all settings on auto, and had them all at highest quality.

Link #2 is the same picture, taken 10 seconds later, with my mother's Kodak Easyshare C330. Thing costs like $120 , is only 4 megapixels, and is generally condisered a piece of junk compared to my Sony. All settings were auto for this as well.

Which looks better to you? Link #1 (my "nicer" Sony) or Link #2 (my mother's bargain basement Kodak?)

Link 1: Sony DSC W50 6 megapixels (http://students.usm.maine.edu/matthew.hayward/DSC00212.JPG)

Link 2: Kodak Easyshare C330 4 megapixels (http://students.usm.maine.edu/matthew.hayward/100_0080.JPG)


If you see what I see, you'll see why I've been so disappointed with Sony with this product in my previous posts....

[John_Reed]

So you were handholding these two photos. The Sony shot at 1/40 of a second, and the Kodak shot at 1/125. The Sony's shot is better illuminated across the scene, but is a little blurry, due to the relatively slow shutter speed with flash, handheld without image stabilization.

I don't think that qualifies the Sony as "crap," though. I'll bet it performs very well on outdoor shots, and even inside, I'll bet it does a better job than the Kodak at rendering human flesh tones?

Try the comparison again, with the two cameras on a tripod or table, and see if you still think the Sony is "crap?" It can't be blamed for your handshake, in my opinion.

[mch111782]

So you were handholding these two photos. The Sony shot at 1/40 of a second, and the Kodak shot at 1/125. The Sony's shot is better illuminated across the scene, but is a little blurry, due to the relatively slow shutter speed with flash, handheld without image stabilization.

I don't think that qualifies the Sony as "crap," though. I'll bet it performs very well on outdoor shots, and even inside, I'll bet it does a better job than the Kodak at rendering human flesh tones?

Try the comparison again, with the two cameras on a tripod or table, and see if you still think the Sony is "crap?" It can't be blamed for your handshake, in my opinion.

I disagree. It takes blurry outside pictures, even in daytime. It was already sent back by Sony for lens repair for this. I have posts of picture examples here going back weeks where people admitted that one side of the picture would be blurry, etc etc.

It came back from the repair place taking even worse pictures than before! That's why I think my particular camera is crap. Maybe not all Sony DSC W50s...but mine at least :-)

And I don't have much hand wobble haha. But if I do have hand wobble, then obviously this Sony isn't the right camera for me if a $120 Kodak is taking sharp pictures and my doubly expensive Sony isn't....

I will place them both on a stable surface right now, outside, and see what I get. Stay tuned :-)

[mch111782]

Ok, here is an outside shot taken 15 minutes ago by both cameras. Cameras were on a stationary deck rail, not moving whatsoever. All settings the same for both cameras (auto).

Link 1 is the Sony 6 megapixel DSC W50. Link 2 is the 4 megapixel $120 Kodak Easyshare C330.

I would look at the detail of the grass, the trees, and the house on the right.

Was it hand wobble this time? :) (Sorry for the sarcasm but I REALLY hate this Sony).

Link 1: Sony DSC W50 6 megapixels on a flat stable surface (http://students.usm.maine.edu/matthew.hayward/DSC00213.JPG)

Link 2: Kodak Easyshare C330 4 megapixels on the same flat surface (http://students.usm.maine.edu/matthew.hayward/100_0087.JPG)

My student web page thing won't let me post any more files (too big), so if more examples are needed, I'll have to get rid of the first ones or find another host. But really though, I now have posted pictures inside AND outside, handheld AND stationary, and the Kodak blows my doubly expensive Sony out of the water. Can someone please tell me what is wrong with this piece of crap? (And yes, it IS a piece of crap) :)

[mch111782]

Any opinions?

[John_Reed]

Any opinions?
The colors from the Kodak look a lot warmer than the Sony, though that could be fixed by post-processing. The greenery is kind of weird. The Sony rendered the pine branches in a very fuzzy way compared to the Kodak. So I thought maybe it was a depth of field issue, but then, things way in the background are still in focus for both images. The foreground grass looks pretty sharp for both images. The only possible other explanation than yours for the difference in the pine branches would be that the wind was blowing for the Sony shot, and calm for the Kodak shot? Otherwise, keep the Kodak. Others may have other opinions as well, but I'll concede your point.

[mch111782]

The colors from the Kodak look a lot warmer than the Sony, though that could be fixed by post-processing. The greenery is kind of weird. The Sony rendered the pine branches in a very fuzzy way compared to the Kodak. So I thought maybe it was a depth of field issue, but then, things way in the background are still in focus for both images. The foreground grass looks pretty sharp for both images. The only possible other explanation than yours for the difference in the pine branches would be that the wind was blowing for the Sony shot, and calm for the Kodak shot? Otherwise, keep the Kodak. Others may have other opinions as well, but I'll concede your point.

I apologize, I didn't mean for it to be like a contest. I was honestly hoping I was wrong, because I'm sort of stuck with this camera and I'd like it to work well! :-)

I wish I could keep the Kodak, but it's my mother's, and also it's huge. The reason I got the Sony is because it can fit in my pocket. I want to get rid of it, but Best Buy won't take it back after 5 months...Sony just wants to keep repairing it...and I can't sell it on ebay without being dishonest.

Looks like I'm going to throw it out or sell it for parts :-(

[John_Reed]

It sounds like the Sony is causing you more mental anguish than it's worth. I'd advise borrowing your mother's camera for awhile when you need one, and meanwhile saving your pennies to buy another camera in the $200-$300 range. Life's too short to be feeling angst over a little pocket-sized inanimate object!

[ktixx]

I agree - that sony isn't performing up to it's par. I have to say that the W50 is a good camera, I know because I have it an use it occasionally. I think the results I am getting are MUCH better then yours. It seems as if you just have a bad one. Sorry
Ken

[JMBZ71]

Good advice John.

Hey mch... Is the clock screwed up on that DSC-W50? The exif data on the shot of the workout room shows a recording date of June 11th and the backyard shot shows a recording date of June 12th. Looks suspicious...

JMBZ71 :)

[mch111782]

Good advice John.

Hey mch... Is the clock screwed up on that DSC-W50? The exif data on the shot of the workout room shows a recording date of June 11th and the backyard shot shows a recording date of June 12th. Looks suspicious...

JMBZ71 :)

Well, I took the inside shot yesterday and the outside shots today, so it was right in terms of time between shots. As far as the date goes, I'll have to check to see what I have the clock set for.

[mch111782]

Yeah it was set for the wrong day and month

[tim11]

And the exif to Kodak Link 2, post #1 (http://students.usm.maine.edu/matthew.hayward/100_0080.JPG), the date is 2005. I suspect the flash fired on that pic (shutter 1/112s?), unless you have your room lighted up like a stadium. What's happening with all the camera dates?
That asides.... your Sony outdoors Sony pic looks terrible.
Why don't you make sure the dates are all correct on both cameras, retake a few more outdoors and post again. Don't post your indoors photos, they will conclude nothing, though I'm beginning to agree with you now... I just need to make sure.

[JMBZ71]

Yeah it was set for the wrong day and month

OK, cool. Personally, I'd try to find someone local who could check the camera out. Is there a camera shop within a reasonable distance that might be willing to check it out and at least give you their opinion/advice? I wouldn't trust a big electronics store but a local camera shop might be worth a shot.

JMBZ71 :)

[mch111782]

And the exif to Kodak Link 2, post #1 (http://students.usm.maine.edu/matthew.hayward/100_0080.JPG), the date is 2005. I suspect the flash fired on that pic (shutter 1/112s?), unless you have your room lighted up like a stadium. What's happening with all the camera dates?
That asides.... your Sony outdoors Sony pic looks terrible.
Why don't you make sure the dates are all correct on both cameras, retake a few more outdoors and post again. Don't post your indoors photos, they will conclude nothing, though I'm beginning to agree with you now... I just need to make sure.

We just never bother setting the dates on our cameras as we never have the dates show up on the pictures.

I don't really have anywhere to post more photos, as my student page is full. ust trust me, the Sony sucks lol.

[mch111782]

OK, cool. Personally, I'd try to find someone local who could check the camera out. Is there a camera shop within a reasonable distance that might be willing to check it out and at least give you their opinion/advice? I wouldn't trust a big electronics store but a local camera shop might be worth a shot.

JMBZ71 :)

Not a bad idea, although Sony keeps having me send it to Precision Camera Repair, which is a few states away. I guess thats where all of their in-warranty service gets done.

[shoeytennis]

i wise man once said "never buy a sony product ever" so i never have and encouraged other people not too.

[ktixx]

i wise man once said "never buy a sony product ever" so i never have and encouraged other people not too.
If you encourage people not to buy Sony Products, then you would also encourage people not to buy Nikon as they use Sony Imaging Chips...I think there are plenty of people that are more than satified by Sony cameras. I would not say because a handfull of people had a bad experience that you should discount all sony's. Clearly his W50 is not working correctly and I don't care if you have a Canon 1DS, if it is broken it isn't going to take good photo's
Ken

[Nesster]

Some of the difference may be due to different levels of in-camera sharpening and color processing - the Kodak seems more sharpened and saturated. You might try to PS the Sony to see if you can get a similar result.

But that said, yeah, I'd expect the Sony to be much sharper and focused.

[shoeytennis]

i wasnt referring to just cameras but all sony products mainly laptops wich are very cheap and overpriced.

[mch111782]

So I had my camera sent to Sony's repair place. I also gave them the same links you saw in thee posts. They reviewed the pictures and told me my Sony was working to exact factory specifications. They said that if the Kodak's pics were better, I should get a Kodak. Great. Just great. Especially since that Kodak is $110 and my Sony was about $300.

So I paid $10 shipping to have absolutely nothing done. And it's the 2nd time I've paid that.

I am so pissed off.

[gary_hendricks]

My vote is for the Kodak in every situation that you have shown us here it does appear that the Kodak is far superior to Sony. This really doesn’t surprise me too much though. I mean if you think about it Kodak has been in the photography business for God knows how long now. Sony has been in for quite a while too but not nearly as long. There is also another difference between the manufacturers and that is that Kodak doesn’t do anything except for specialize in photography. On the other hand, Sony makes a lot of different electronic gadgets and so they are not specializing in photography. I think that this is very important because Kodak has more time to work on their equipment than Sony does. I honestly believe that this is the reason why you are seeing that Kodak is really that much better than Sony.

[bascom]

In the Kodak photo the colors look oversaturated to me.


i wise man once said "never buy a sony product ever" so i never have and encouraged other people not too.
I've had a Sony TV for 6 years and it's been good. I think Sony makes some of the best TV's.

[JMBZ71]

mch... Based on your results, I'd have to question Sony's "exact factory specifications". But if you're that unhappy with it, I'd cut my losses and unload the W50 on eBay. You know what they say... "One person's trash is another person's treasure".

JMBZ71 :)

[tim11]

But what I am thinking is it possible your Sony is defective? I wouldn't be buying it if that image is according to factory specs. It's CRAP.